Far from a Turning Point on Hunger, Summit Flops. (World)

Allen, John L., Jr., National Catholic Reporter

Heading into the June 10-13 World Food Summit in Rome, virtually all observers agreed on the need for a dramatic new commitment to combating global hunger. Some 24,000 people die each day from malnutrition, according to United Nations statistics, and 800 million people are undernourished.

After the summit, which was billed as a potential turning point in global policy on hunger relief, virtually everyone agreed on something else: The meeting was a flop.

Disagreement focused solely on whom to blame.

While 4,000 delegates from 182 countries attended the meeting, including several dozen heads of state and 30 prime ministers, mostly from Africa, only two G-8 nations were represented by chief executives--Spain and host Italy. The others sent low-level delegations, leading critics to charge a lack of commitment on the part of the world's wealthiest nations.

"This is the poor's summit. We invited all the premiers of the rich countries, but no one came," said Jacques Diouf, a Senegalese diplomat who heads the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the principal organizer of the summit. "We have a good indication of the political priority given to the tragedy of hunger."

The first United Nations-sponsored World Food Summit, held in Rome in 1996, produced solemn pledges to cut the numbers of those suffering from hunger in half by 2015, an aim that analysts concede has not come close to being realized. The number of hungry people is currently falling at the rate of 6 million a year, far short of the 22 million needed to reach the 1996 goal.

While the United Nations has called on developed nations to set aside 0.7 percent of gross domestic product for aid to developing nations for hunger relief, only four have actually met the target: Norway, Sweden, Holland and Denmark. The United States ranks last on the list, devoting 0.1 percent of gross domestic product to such aid.

At this year's summit, Diouf called for $24 billion to fund a global anti-hunger program.

Some participants from the developing world could not resist pointing out that while 800 million people, almost entirely in the Third World, go hungry, an estimated 300 million, mostly in the developed West, are obese. Given that contrast, the nonchalance of Western nations clearly rankled.

Even John Paul II got into the act, complaining on the eve of the summit that global hunger is caused by "human inertia and self-centeredness." It did not take much imagination to grasp just whose inertia the pope had in mind.

Yet some Western leaders were not in the mood for mea culpas. England's minister for international development, Claire Short, fired back June 12 that the summit was a "waste of time," and that the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization first had to "reform itself" if it wants to solve the hunger problem.

Meanwhile, across town a parallel summit organized by 1,600 delegates representing around 600 nongovernmental organizations struck a "pox on both your houses" stance, saying that the debate between diplomats over how much spending on hunger relief is enough misses the point.

The Forum for Food Sovereignty, which regards food as a right rather than a commodity, argued that food security can best be guaranteed by allowing nations to determine their own production and distribution policies based on their needs and agricultural practices. This challenges the capitalist assumption that the free market is always the best way to organize the food trade.

The best way to feed the hungry, according to the forum, is to ensure the local agricultural producers remain viable. Giant agribusiness companies must not monopolize common resources such as land, water, and seed, the activists argued.

A major issue at both summits was the role of genetically modified organisms in the fight against hunger. Developing nations, along with ecological activists in Europe, tend to see genetically modified crops both as potentially unsafe--"Frankenstein foods"--and as a Trojan horse for the financial interests of multinational biotechnology companies. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Print this page

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary
to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution.
We are sorry for any inconvenience.